DUNI CHAND Vs. SHAKTI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Shakti Chand instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and for restraining the defendant from changing the nature of the suit land. The suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed by the learned trial Court. The defendant standing aggrieved by the decree rendered in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial Court instituted an appeal therefrom before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate court rendered a judgement and decree in affirmation to the judgement and decree rendered by the learned trial Court. The defendant is aggrieved by the concurrently recorded judgements and decrees of both the Courts below. He has instituted the second appeal before this Court for seeking reversal of the findings recorded therein.

(2.) The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit in the Court below to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 31 min, Khatauni No.51 min, Khasra No. 305/92, measuring 13 marlas, situated in Tika Chhal Buhla, Tappa Jhaniara, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. as shown in the copy of Jambandi, Ext.PA, for the year 1993 -94 on record. He has purchased the suit land from his father out of Khasra No. 92 and new Khasra No. 92/7 was carved out of the same. The present Khasra Number of Khasra No. 92/7 is 305/92. It is averred that he is now coming in possession of the suit land measuring 13 marlas, as owner but the defendant appellant Duni Chand is stranger to the same, who was threatening to raise construction forcibly in the suit land.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by defendant on the ground of plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit land and he has no cause of action to file the present suit and the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct. On merits it is averred that the suit land is coming in the possession of the defendant/appellant since the year 1975 -76 and it is claimed that he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. So it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.